Look up verified deals and store policies for a specific online retailer: signup/newsletter offer, free-shipping threshold, return window, price-match, gift cards, student/military discounts, current sale, and the value.us VUS score (our data-confidence rating). Input a store name or domain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| retailer | Yes | Store name or domain, e.g. 'Brooklinen' or 'brooklinen.com'. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose the data returned (signup offers, shipping thresholds, return windows, etc.) and the VUS score, but it does not mention potential limitations such as missing data for obscure stores, freshness, or what happens when a retailer isn't found. This is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Look up verified deals and store policies for a specific online retailer') followed by a clear, comma-separated list of included data. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description is comprehensive: it lists the return data fields and the input requirement. It does not describe return format or error handling, but the absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit enumeration of what the tool returns. A score of 4 reflects its completeness for typical use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter description already includes examples ('Brooklinen' or 'brooklinen.com'). The tool description reiterates 'Input a store name or domain' but adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Look up') and resource ('verified deals and store policies for a specific online retailer'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like find_deals (general deal search) and check_retailer_trust (trust rating only). It enumerates the exact data categories returned, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: use this tool when you need verified deals and store policies for a specific named retailer. It implies a targeted lookup ('Input a store name or domain') and contrasts with siblings by focusing on a single retailer. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or when to prefer alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are mostly distinct: one for trust scores, one for searching deals across retailers, one for detailed retailer policies. Minor overlap between find_deals and lookup_retailer on deals, but the scoping is clear.
All three tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in lower snake_case: check_retailer_trust, find_deals, lookup_retailer. No mixing of styles.
3 tools is a small but well-focused set for a retail data service covering trust scores, deal search, and retailer details. Not too few given the narrow domain.
The tool set covers core user needs: trust assessment, deal discovery, and retailer policy lookup. Missing features like retailer comparison or list are non-critical, so it's reasonably complete.
